|
On May 10 2010 09:58 Madkipz wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2010 09:46 faction123 wrote:
But your not getting the core issue. THE OP here has a past in wc3 and in sc2 minerals and vespene dont suffer diminishing returns from upkeep and thus his entire point is moot. Had the dude not been given the gas, his partner could simply have made an equal amount of mutas.
Op dosnt even grasp this fact and thus fails to argument his chase.
No his partner couldn't have. He didn't even have lair and sure as hell didn't have a spire. They skipped all the disadvantages of double teching. There is a disadvantage in double teching? Last time i checked it made your timings just as potent. Picture that both teched to lair, picture that both these people teched to muta. They would still have fielded a larger mass of mutas, because of their ling heavy ground army and the op would still have lost. And i didnt include that part of the replay in my argument. The statement about mutas was more to make a point being that since there is no upkeep in this game it dosnt matter.
lol, how would they have fielded a larger mass of mutas? he got HARRASSED TO SHIT in the early game, lost his FE, and was basically totally dead. Except because he kept drones on gas, he had enough to give his partner.
Please don't comment if you didnt watch the rep.
|
Baa?21244 Posts
It adds strategy and depth, instead of "mass my own units and win."
I think you're basically QQing because you don't know how to effectively trade resources to your advantage.
|
On May 10 2010 10:41 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2010 09:06 crate wrote:
edit: As far as saying it makes 2v2 less skillful ... normally I'd say "go prove it" but it doesn't seem likely that we'll see 2v2 tournaments where you could seriously do so. The problem here is you need to show that a 2v2 involving resource trading from both sides boils down into something less skillful than a 2v2 with no/limited resource trading. I think it follows from the fact that it shifts the importance of various players in the game, and thus reduces the pressure on others. The player with more resources is naturally going to make up a larger bulk of the army from a team trading resources, and his decisions are naturally going to have a greater impact on the ultimate outcome of the game than those of the player with less resources. At this point, it becomes subjective whether you think that a game that makes one player's decisions more important and another's less important is more skilled than one that values their decisions equally.
Not sure I buy this because of shared control. Play a 2v2, turn on shared control, have one player just macro and the other just micro. This doesn't seem very different to me from sharing resources and ending up with one player collecting lots of resources and doing little else, and the other making lots of units and controlling those units. In fact I think in the latter case they'd still benefit from shared control; have one player get resources, send to his ally, and then build stuff with those resources from his ally's buildings while the other guy controls the army. Splits the burden more evenly and in this case ends up nearly identical to the not-sharing case.
|
Madkipz, what the fuck are you still on about?
On May 10 2010 10:12 Madkipz wrote:
The mechanic that promoted feeding in wc3 in the first place because it put people with 100/100 food armies at a disadvantage. Feeding was a way to cope with having a large mass.
Why would being at 100/100 food, earning 40% income and receiving 40% from trades encourage feeding? Staying under 40 food and feeding is what promoted the mechanic because you took no penalties and you could play your hero like a dota hero. Feeding in WC3 is obviously an early game strategy that stops being effective when the main army is at 80/100.
On May 10 2010 10:12 Madkipz wrote:
Its not some cheese. Its another level of strategy scout spire, counter approriately.YOur just biased and butthurt because of your previous wc3 experience with it, your not broadening your horisons or thinking properly. YOur just envisioning how it will turn out. It may take a year or so but people will counter it by double teching and doing it right as they always have.
First of all, "you're."
Second of all, I scout the spire. Then what? There is nothing that tells me whether, in 33 seconds, I will be facing 5 or 17 mutas.
If you think that the OP is not a proper argument for how WC3 feeding was regulated and how unregulated SC2 feeding is, then whatever. Go troll some other thread. Seriously. Stop posting in my thread. Your 1st grade spelling is painful to read.
On May 10 2010 10:15 crate wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2010 10:03 Vexx wrote:
A couple posters want me to definitively prove that this is going to be bad. Hello, have you played warcraft 3 recently? Here is a RTS from Blizzard that has been around for years so you can go ahead and login and tell me what team ladder looks like. Only 1v1 is taken seriously there. I've never played competitive WC3 (or in fact multiplayer WC3 at all). I do know that the game is vastly different from SC2 and I'm not sure how you can be so sure that resource trading will work the same in SC2 and WC3.
WC3 and SC are vastly different only where hero/creeps are concerned. Otherwise, base building, resource gathering, army production etc are all very similar. Feeding falls within the area where both games play similarly.
NightOne,
I think your intentions are good but you're just talking out of your ass. I suggest you watch the replay to see that my numbers are not exaggerated.
My argument isn't that resource sharing is impossible to fight, it's that it is too strong, unscoutable etc for how easy it is to do.
I don't want to give up on you guys because you obviously have not grasped the power of feeding. I understand why you may have doubts and want to argue, but when you say things like "if you lose to feeding, you are missing something", it's clear to me why you're not seeing the potential.
I'm all for countering strategies and improving your game, but I also know that facing feeding game after game makes you feel like you're not playing an RTS anymore and when you stop playing team ladder because of it, it will be too late for us to save the team ladders.
I disapprove of plenty of crap like proxy cannons and mass static defense but I'm not arguing for them to be removed. But feeding is in it's own little category.
Remember: my concern is keeping 2v2 competitive and fun and making sure the ladders maintain a healthy population not just in 1v1. By the time you see for a fact that feeding is ruining team ladder in SC2, it will be way too late.
On May 10 2010 10:46 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:
It adds strategy and depth, instead of "mass my own units and win."
I think you're basically QQing because you don't know how to effectively trade resources to your advantage.
Yea, I'm QQing because I don't know how to effectively trade resources. Shit, it's so hard for me to grasp saving my gas until 5 minutes and then clicking the trade resource button and dumping it on my ally so he can build 10 cloaked banshees. Engaging in feeding myself is just pissing in the pool and I will not be to blame for team ladder going to shit because 2 digit IQ idiots thought they were being intelligent when they thought up great ways to feed.
|
In Age of Empires II there was like a 25% cost to donating any resource. You could research something to make it like 10%. I don't know if anyone high level ever donated except maybe enough to make a new base if they were dead, or donate extra res if they were near max population.
Ofcourse u also had to research something to share vision with your allies and that wasnt viable until 20 minutes into the game sometimes.
|
By the time you see for a fact that feeding is ruining team ladder in SC2, it will be way too late.
I would suggest you go find a teammate and go ruin the ladder in the beta then so Blizzard sees the problem. Try to convince everyone you can to do the same thing with you. If it's broken and you show Blizzard, I hope they'd take action. If not, then I doubt this topic matters anyway.
edit: I know once/if I find a partner I'd be all for abusing this for all its worth.
edit2:Shit, it's so hard for me to grasp saving my gas until 5 minutes and then clicking the trade resource button and dumping it on my ally so he can build 10 cloaked banshees.
I would like to point out that while the Zerg equivalent is basically unscoutable (but then so are most Zerg tech switches), in this case you need a bunch of starports, which is entirely scoutable.
|
On May 10 2010 10:44 faction123 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2010 09:58 Madkipz wrote:On May 10 2010 09:46 faction123 wrote:
But your not getting the core issue. THE OP here has a past in wc3 and in sc2 minerals and vespene dont suffer diminishing returns from upkeep and thus his entire point is moot. Had the dude not been given the gas, his partner could simply have made an equal amount of mutas.
Op dosnt even grasp this fact and thus fails to argument his chase.
No his partner couldn't have. He didn't even have lair and sure as hell didn't have a spire. They skipped all the disadvantages of double teching. There is a disadvantage in double teching? Last time i checked it made your timings just as potent. Picture that both teched to lair, picture that both these people teched to muta. They would still have fielded a larger mass of mutas, because of their ling heavy ground army and the op would still have lost. And i didnt include that part of the replay in my argument. The statement about mutas was more to make a point being that since there is no upkeep in this game it dosnt matter. lol, how would they have fielded a larger mass of mutas? he got HARRASSED TO SHIT in the early game, lost his FE, and was basically totally dead. Except because he kept drones on gas, he had enough to give his partner. Please don't comment if you didnt watch the rep.
Watched it twice, on FASTEST not some retarded 6x. and you know what? he was not practically dead, he had enough to help himself and his partner survive while the opponent rages about feeding. ITS A CLEAR CUT CHASE OF LOW TIER PLAYERS WHO BITCH about something they should instead account for, it takes them over 30 seconds to even begin fielding some amount of spore crawlers and you know what? Feeding didnt kill the op, mutas did.
HAD his ally spent all of his minerals and gas on himself instead, there would barely have been any difference in the outcome and no reason to have ever brought it up. But he does, because he is a biased wc3 player and should be treated as such.
|
On May 10 2010 10:57 Madkipz wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2010 10:44 faction123 wrote:On May 10 2010 09:58 Madkipz wrote:On May 10 2010 09:46 faction123 wrote:
But your not getting the core issue. THE OP here has a past in wc3 and in sc2 minerals and vespene dont suffer diminishing returns from upkeep and thus his entire point is moot. Had the dude not been given the gas, his partner could simply have made an equal amount of mutas.
Op dosnt even grasp this fact and thus fails to argument his chase.
No his partner couldn't have. He didn't even have lair and sure as hell didn't have a spire. They skipped all the disadvantages of double teching. There is a disadvantage in double teching? Last time i checked it made your timings just as potent. Picture that both teched to lair, picture that both these people teched to muta. They would still have fielded a larger mass of mutas, because of their ling heavy ground army and the op would still have lost. And i didnt include that part of the replay in my argument. The statement about mutas was more to make a point being that since there is no upkeep in this game it dosnt matter. lol, how would they have fielded a larger mass of mutas? he got HARRASSED TO SHIT in the early game, lost his FE, and was basically totally dead. Except because he kept drones on gas, he had enough to give his partner. Please don't comment if you didnt watch the rep. Watched it twice, on FASTEST not some retarded 6x. and you know what? he was not practically dead, he had enough to help himself and his partner survive while the opponent rages about feeding. ITS A CLEAR CUT CHASE OF LOW TIER PLAYERS WHO BITCH about something they should instead account for, it takes them over 30 seconds to even begin fielding some amount of spore crawlers and you know what? Feeding didnt kill the op, mutas did. HAD his ally spent all of his minerals and gas on himself instead, there would barely have been any difference in the outcome and no reason to have ever brought it up. But he does, because he is a biased wc3 player and should be treated as such.
Are you trying to claim that a player who lost his nat and who was sitting on 1 base would have been able to match his partners lair/spire timing and get just as many mutas as they had out at the same time his partner did?
Just wondering here. (No, his spire would've been heavily, heavily delayed and actually going muta as well would've been an awful idea with how far behind he was)
That's pretty much what your argument was, and it's flat out awful. I see you've changed to "he's bad" now, nicely done. Glad you realized you're wrong. They set one player far behind, the one who wasn't touched matched the OP's Spire timing, except instead of 7-8 mutas, he comes out with 17 all spawning at the same time because his partner had a ton of gas he couldn't use due to keeping drones on it when he otherwise had no use for it. Yes, resource changing 100% drastically changed how the game in the OP went.
|
If feeding result in interesting strategy, I'm all for it. It is too early to tell without someone finding the "100% super always win feeding" strategy or something like that.
|
I’m trying to state that if they had both teched lair in a similar fashion they would both have been able to field mutas at about the same time with just about the same result, although its hard to predict because its bad play from both sides. While resource changing helped during the actual game, no it’s not game breaking.
It will not "Ruin 2v2" as the op claims and if I am wrong and it turns out that the op is true,
He can come back half a year or so from now and exclaim that he told me so, and I would gladly hand him 20 bucks.
Quote from this post, if you got to Vexx but I think at the bottom of my heart that what you are suggesting is not for the good of the game.
|
Actually I can see it being pretty devastating to 2v2. I know it's hardly an RTS to compare to Starcraft, but I remember in my high-level play Halo Wars days when the prominent 2v2 strat was for one guy to mass up Supply Pads and feed his teammate money and they fast tech Gauss Hog. And they could get 10 Gauss Hogs in less than 3 minutes, which should be the normal number normally at about 8 minutes or so and it was just impossible to beat.
I can imagine something similar erupting in modern play in Starcraft, one player like a T fast Orbital Commanding and spamming MUEL's and SCV's while feeding his Protoss or Zerg teammate as they stream units to their opponents base. And imagine a Protoss with double the economy, or even triple possibly due to feeding doing a like, 8 gate early push or something. That would just be ridiculous.
I am not proposing a nerf of any kind, I personally believe it can add some depth to strategy. But it's not something that should be overlooked.
|
On May 10 2010 11:20 Madkipz wrote:
I’m trying to state that if they had both teched lair in a similar fashion they would both have been able to field mutas at about the same time with just about the same result, although its hard to predict because its bad play from both sides. While resource changing helped during the actual game, no it’s not game breaking.
It will not "Ruin 2v2" as the op claims and if I am wrong and it turns out that the op is true,
He can come back half a year or so from now and exclaim that he told me so, and I would gladly hand him 20 bucks.
Quote from this post, if you got to Vexx but I think at the bottom of my heart that what you are suggesting is not for the good of the game.
That's just not true though, because to field equally upgraded muta armies they'd both have to spend resources on the lair, spire, and upgrades. The timing of the lair/spire will be faster due to having more gas than one could possibly have at that point in the game, and you aren't trading off any eco to get this production. The player feeding can still get a huge mineral only army, or mass static defense, they aren't just naked for some early rush.
|
I don't know how to feel about this. On one hand, I can see how trading like this could lead to some really obnoxious tech patterns or a unit composition that gains a clear, unpreventable advantage. On the other hand, that's a purely speculative suggestion. Even if you lose a game where the opposition fed gas, it's hard to definitively say you would have won if they did not. There are a lot of other factors. This game is an example of just that.
You (it seems) were playing with a random partner while it is more likely that your opposition was a queued team. They (probably) had a long term plan going in, which makes a difference in execution. You did not coordinate your first attack, which could have been decisive. Since it failed, you were left with a weaker starting econ which can be significant. Blue harvester count was low all game. One of you should have built a baneling nest in a 4 zerg match; this shouldn't have needed a prompt, but it was especially evident at the 6 min mark when you saw 30 zerglings and would be clued in to their spire intentions. If you had hit 20-30 seconds later with 6 banelings in tow, it wouldn't have even been close. Both players getting lair/spire would have cut the number of mutalisks, but they still would have had more because they were able to rely on zerglings for 12 minutes. There are other factors as well.
If you really think this is a significant problem, do as others have mentioned and abuse it as hard as possible. Come up with strats based around it. Test them repeatedly against equally skilled practice partners that know they're going to be dealing with it. This is a beta, and this is exactly the sort of thing Bliz wants tested, so in a way I'm glad this thread exists. Just don't base your opinion on past knowledge of a completely different set of mechanics (wc3) and one loss in the ladder.
|
On May 10 2010 11:04 SWPIGWANG wrote:
If feeding result in interesting strategy, I'm all for it. It is too early to tell without someone finding the "100% super always win feeding" strategy or something like that.
i've seen some pretty near unbeatable 1 base pushes from a terran with a zerg just drone powering and feeding.
it's not so much that it's unbeatable or "gay", it's more that it takes depth away from the game. past mid game there's no real way to tell where the resources are which becomes even dumber on these new "shared base" maps.
|
If you don't like ressource trading, say it directly, don't post a 2vs2 replay where a team uses it effectively to somehow make it obvious that this is an out-of-control game-breaking feature that has to be deleted.
No one yet knows what part ressource-trading will take in competitive team games, no one, so at this point you either like or not the mecanisms, and don't pretend otherwise, you would be a liar.
|
It was definitely game breaking in this situation. He posted the rep as an example of how it can be game breaking. In agame playing against people who do 0 harrass or attacks and just sit back and tech the whole game sure, you can do your builds at the exact same times. Except... in games people usually do stuff.
|
From another point of view, if resource-trading (and shared control) becomes the dominant strategy, we could think of "2v2" as simply "a super version of 1v1 with two races, 400 supply cap, and two players' APM", which I feel is a very interesting thing in itself.
If it turns out to have very different gameplay from the "2v2 as we think of it now", why not just make resource-trading a toggleable option (or possibly with parameters for max resources/time to share)? Then players get the flexibility to decide what sort of game they want to play.
|
On May 10 2010 12:03 pschiu wrote:
From another point of view, if resource-trading (and shared control) becomes the dominant strategy, we could think of "2v2" as simply "a super version of 1v1 with two races, 400 supply cap, and two players' APM", which I feel is a very interesting thing in itself.
If it turns out to have very different gameplay from the "2v2 as we think of it now", why not just make resource-trading a toggleable option (or possibly with parameters for max resources/time to share)? Then players get the flexibility to decide what sort of game they want to play.
I like this idea. There should be two different kinds of 2v2. One in which it's two separate players, no feeding, no funny business, no shared control. This would be the traditional view.
Then we could have another one where you can do whatever you want basically. Shared control, 400 food, one player macros the other micros...etc. I think that could be REALLY fun seeing who has the best chemistry. And think of the racial combination's you could use. You would see a lot more chemistry between different races units than you do in normal 2v2.
|
Yeah it's true that one person doesn't have to invest in tech while the other person techs, eliminating redundancy. Trading is without a doubt beneficial. But I think it's not true to say that this decreases the amount of interesting play you can have in 2v2, it increases it. Say in this game one of you got a roach warren and spawned a whole bunch of roaches in the beginning instead of both, trading minerals to the roaching player. Then while you did that, the non roach player techs to lair and gets a spire. Trade gas to the mutalisk player. You will have a million roaches and a million mutas. Both player have to participate and play well to make this work.
I think that there are tons of interesting things you can do with resource trading compared to without it. Saying that because you lost this one game to people doing the most basic of trading shows that trading is powerful, but doesn't show that it's game breaking.
|
Hey, while we're at it, let's implement a NR 5 Min rule to every game, as well as disallowing Proxy Buildings and Terran Lift Off to High Yield.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
